Grey County Apple Study

7/31/2019 Grey County Apple Study

1/52

GREY COUNTYAPPLES

April 2011A Planning and Development Perspective:Challenges and Opportunities

Anneleis EckertEric Marr

Justin Miller

Kate Procter

Denise Whaley


2/52

Grey County Apples

Page 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As graduate students of the University of Guelph in the Rural Planning and Development program, weundertook this short study as part of our Advanced Planning Practice class. The topic of this document

represents large, complex and entrenched issues to which we only scratched the surface. To all of those who

contributed your time, energy and patience to aid in our understanding of this project we humbly thank you.

We would also gratefully like to acknowledge the following as special resources in this study:

The nine growers, packers and other industry professionals who graciously consented to beinterviewed for our research

The twenty growers and distributor who took part in the online survey Rob Armstrong, Director of Planning and Building and Laurie Mitchell, Economic Development

and Communications Officer at the Municipality of Meaford

Cindy Welsh, Senior Policy Planner; Peter Tollefsen, Director of Special Projects and Lisa Kidd,Communications and Economic Development Coordinator at the Town of the Blue Mountains

Scott Taylor, Senior Planner and Randy Scherzer, Director of Planning and Development atthe County of Grey

And last, but not least, our inspirational teacher and mentor, Dr. Wayne Caldwell whose guidance was

invaluable in our research and development of this document.


3/52

Grey County Apples

Page 2

Contents

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 4

2 GREY APPLE INDUSTRY STUDY ............................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Introduction and Terms of Reference .......................................................................................... 5

2.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Background on Apples in Grey County ....................................................................................... 62.4 Apple Industry History in Grey County ....................................................................................... 7

2.5 Specialty Crop Land Designation ................................................................................................ 8

2.6 Current State of the Industry ........................................................................................................ 9

3 LITERATURE REVIEW AND CASE STUDY ............................................................................................ 11

3.1 Industry Strategic Plan ............................................................................................................... 11

3.2 British Columbia .......................................................................................................................... 14

4 SURVEY OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 19

4.1 General Results ............................................................................................................................ 19

4.1.1 Purpose for Growing ............................................................................................................ 20

4.1.2 Advertising ............................................................................................................................. 22

4.1.3 Direct Sales ............................................................................................................................ 22

4.1.4 Future Plans ............................................................................................................................ 24

4.2 Issues ............................................................................................................................................. 26

4.2.1 Obstacles and Barriers ......................................................................................................... 26

4.2.2 Government Support ............................................................................................................. 27

4.2.3 Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 28

4.2.4 Additional Comments ............................................................................................................ 28

4.3 Options ......................................................................................................................................... 29

4.3.1 Marketing and Profitability ................................................................................................. 29

4.3.2 Government Support ............................................................................................................. 304.3.3 Additional Comments ............................................................................................................ 31

4.4 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 32

5 LOOKING FORWARD ............................................................................................................................ 33

5.1 PrinciplesReflections from ourselves, the community and the literature .......................... 33

5.2 Future Direction ........................................................................................................................... 34

5.2.1 Low Hanging Fruit ................................................................................................................. 35

5.2.2 Land Use Planning Policy Options ...................................................................................... 36

5.2.3 Economic Development ......................................................................................................... 40

APPENDIX I. TERMS OF REFERENCE ........................................................................................................... 42

APPENDIX II. APPLE INDUSTRY SURVEY QUESTIONS ............................................................................ 44

APPENDIX III. EDGE PLANNING RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 49

RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................................ 50


4/52

Grey County Apples

Page 3

L I S T O F T A B L E S A N D F I G U R E S

TABLE 1 Distribution of Fresh vs. Processed Apples

TABLE 2Breakdown of Orchard Areas in Grey County, 2006

TABLE 3 What types of apples do you produce?TABLE 4 What types of advertising do you participate in?

TABLE 5 What are the future plans for your operation in the next five years?

TABLE 6 Some activities are barriers to profitability

TABLE 7Which of the following do you believe would be most beneficial for the profitability of your operation?

FIGURE 1 Apple Production -Ontario and Grey County (1995-2009)

FIGURE 2 Apple Production Ontario and Grey County with Projections (1995-2034)

FIGURE 3 Value of Ontario Imports and ExportsFIGURE 4 BC Growers Cooperative Structure

FIGURE 5 What is the approximate size of your orchard?

FIGURE 6 Why do you grow apples?

FIGURE 7 How important are direct sales to your business?

FIGURE 8 What are the future plans for your operation in the next five years?

FIGURE 9 Please rate the following statements about support provided by the various levels of government

for the Apple Industry

FIGURE 10 What would be the best way to improve the apple marketing system?


5/52

Grey County Apples

Page 4

Grey County Apples

The Core of the Issue

OBSTACLES TO SUCCESS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY IN GREY COUNTY AND OPTIONS GOING FORWARD

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYApple producers throughout North America are pressured by increasing competition from international

growers and rising input costs. In 2007, China had increased its production by six times in 15 years (BCFGA,

2007). In addition, per capita consumption of fresh apples in North America has been in decline. The average

North American consumed 3.08 kg of fresh apples in 2005, which represents a decline of over half a

kilogram since 1991.

Grey County, traditionally an important apple growing region in Ontario, has not been immune to

these market conditions. Recognizing a serious decline in apple production, the County of Grey is considering

this situation by consulting with graduate students at the University of Guelph to determine planning practices

that could help the industry remain viable or determine alternatives.

While many of the issues facing county growers must be addressed at a federal or provincial level,

there are some options available for local consideration. County and municipal plans could support industry

initiatives through collaborative efforts such as supporting farmers markets and buy local campaigns. Land

use planning and zoning considerations could also assist growers by addressing issues such as housing for

workers, buffer zones, specialty crop land designations and secondary use policies. Facilitating linkages

between affected stakeholders including the municipality, the county, local health units, small business

development agencies, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), as well as

grower associations could provide a springboard for further action.


6/52


7/52

Grey County Apples

Page 6

industry organization and planners and economic developers with Grey County, the Municipality of Meaford

and the Town of the Blue Mountains.

The survey for this report was distributed electronically by the Ontario Apple Growers Association

with responses collected using the Survey Monkey web service. The date of distribution was March 11, 2011

with the survey being closed on March 26, 2011. Overall, the survey was distributed to 55 individuals with 20

completing the survey, of which 19 were growers and 1 was a distributor.

Due to the small size of the sample we cannot refer to the surveys findings as statistically

representative of the apple industry of Grey County. Nevertheless, the findings do provide insight into the

current state of the industry; the issues faced by members located in Grey County; as well as potential options

for addressing issues faced by the industry.

2.3 Background on Apples in Grey CountyThe apple is part of a shared identity of much of Southern Georgian Bay. A walk down Sykes Street

in Meaford with a visit to the Apple information booth or a perusal of the Apple Pie Trail map and website

reveals that tourism of Meaford and Blue Mountains has often focused on the icon of the apple. Grey County

continues to grow more apples than any other county in Ontario, and a wide variety of apples, from the most

popular Mac, Ida Red and Spy, to the newer Gala and Honey Crisp.

Most of the apples in Grey County are processed into juice with the rest sold in the fresh market.

According to the latest data available, growers receive approximately $0.06/lb for apples used for

processing versus $0.16 for fresh apples. The fresh market offers the greatest return for the grower. Table 1

illustrates the portion of fresh versus processed apples within five Ontario regions. Georgian Bay, part of

which includes Grey County has a much higher rate of processed apples and a lower rate of fresh apples

compare to all other regions.


8/52

Grey County Apples

Page 7

Table 1Distribution of Fresh vs. Processed Apples

District2001 2002

Fresh (%) Processing (%) Fresh (%) Processing (%)

1(Niagara-Simcoe) 67 33 91 9

2 (London) 59 41 52 48

3 (Leamington) 58 42 77 23

4 (Georgian Bay) 17 83 23 77

5 (East) 77 23 63 37

Provincial Average 58 42 58 42

Source: OMAFRA, 2003

2.4 Apple Industry History in Grey CountyGrey County, and more specifically St. Vincent Township (now part of the Municipality of Meaford),

has a long history of apple growing and innovation. It was discovered early on that the lands near Cape Rich

were ideal growing regions for apples. David Doran brought the first known seedlings to the area in 1837

(St. Vincent Heritage Association, 2004). Micro Climates caused by the effects of Georgian Bay buffered by

the Niagara Escarpment to the south, allowed even tender fruits to be gown in this area. Late springs caused

by the cool water of the bay delayed blossoms until the risk of late frost had passed; the water warmed over

the summer caused the slow cooling of winter and allowed for a longer harvesting period (Almond, 1985).

Infrastructure was built to process apples, including dehydrating, canning, juicing and fermentation for

cider vinegar in close proximity to growing areas and apples were shipped directly from the dock at Cape

Rich (Almond, 1985). The Cape Rich area of St. Vincent flourished as an apple growing region until 1942

when 258 acres of land, containing nearly 9,000 trees, was expropriated for the military tank and firing

range, now Land Forces Central Area Training Centre (Pedlar, 1984).


9/52

Grey County Apples

Page 8

Gradually, orchards were planted south and east of St. Vincent into the Beaver Valley along the

Niagara Escarpment, reaching 16,000 acres for the region by the 1930s (Findlay, 2010). Historically,

orchards were smaller plots, between 1 acre average in 1921 (Statscan, 2009) to an average of 12 acres in

1983 (Pedlar, 1984).

2.5 Specialty Crop Land DesignationThe specialty crop land designation is one consideration for land use planners in Grey County. This

unique classification is provided to land based on considerations of soil quality, climate, and historical use as

determined by Grey County and OMAFRA.

Ontarios Provincial Policy Statement (2005) defines Specialty Crop area as follows:

areas designated using evaluation procedures established by the province, as amended from time to time,

where specialty crops such as tender fruits (peaches, cherries, plums), grapes, other fruit crops, vegetable

crops, greenhouse crops, and crops from agriculturally developed organic soil lands are predominantly

grown, usually resulting from:

a. soils that have suitability to produce specialty crops, or lands that are subject to special climaticconditions, or a combination of both; and/or

b. a combination of farmers skilled in the production of specialty crops, and of capital investment inrelated facilities and services to produce, store, or process specialty crops (PPS, 2005).

Grey Countys Official Plan states that the Special Agriculture designation applies to those unique

areas of the County that lend themselves to the growing of fruit and vegetables. Supporting land uses such as

farm produce storage, processing, packaging, or sales that must locate close to the farm operation to reduce

spoilage and transportation costs are also permitted (Grey County Official Plan, August 2000.). Greys

Official Plan further determines a minimum lot size within the special agriculture designation of 10 hectares.


10/52

Grey County Apples

Page 9

2.6 Current State of the IndustryUntil the mid-1990s, the apple industry in Ontario was enjoying significant gains in production levels

and expanded crop areas. In the 2006 Census of Agriculture, Grey County had 4,300 acres of orchard

lands.

Table 2 Breakdown of Orchard Areas in Grey County, 2006

Community # of Acres

Blue Mountains 2,766

Meaford 1,341

Grey Highlands 123

Other Municipalities (combined) 70

Total 4,300

Source: Statscan, 2006

Table 2 shows that the majority of orchard acres, nearly 2/3, are found in Blue Mountains with nearly

1/3 in Meaford. There are 123 acres in Grey Highlands, in the southern Beaver Valley area. The total acres

have experienced almost a 50% reduction since the 1990s when the area encompassed 8000 acres

(Goldsmith, 2006).

This trend is observable across the province in all tree fruits. In 1921 there were 297,053 acres in

tree fruits in Ontario, down to only 79,968 acres in 2006 (Statscan, 2009).

Figure 1 demonstrates apple production numbers observed in both the county and the province since

1995. At both levels apple production has experienced similar trends in variability. Production in Ontario

during this period varied from a high of 730,500,000 lbs in 1999 to a low of 285,033,000 in 2002. In

Grey County there was a high of 189,667,000 and a low of 68,578,000 for the same years.


11/52

Grey County Apples

Page 10

Figure 2 provides a visual representation of what the decline of the industry might look like if it

continued at the current rate with no intervention. It is modeled with projections using an average of the

production decline using the actual historical numbers.

FIGURE 1

Source: OMAFRA, 2009

This projection is made based on three assumptions. First, it represents the do nothing alternative if

there were to be no intervention in the industry at any level. Secondly, it assumes that the rate of decline will

continue according to historical trends, and finally, that production will reach absolute zero. This last

assumption is highly unlikely since hobby and smaller scale farms will likely continue and these will be less

impacted by global and other stressors. However, for illustrative purposes, it makes a startling statement

about the rate of decline experienced in the previous 15 years. The trend of overall decline is expected to

continue since many acres of orchard trees were removed in 2010 due to OMAFRAs Orchard and Vineyard

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1994 1999 2004 2009

Productioninmillions(lbs)

Year

Apple Production - Ontario and Grey County(1995-2009)

Ontario Production

Grey Production

Linear (Ontario Production)

Linear (Grey Production)


12/52

Grey County Apples

Page 11

Transition Program (OVTP) which assisted with the removal of trees. It is important to note that no data was

available about the number of orchards affected at the date of this report.

FIGURE 2

3 LITERATURE REVIEW AND CASE STUDY3.1Industry Strategic Plan

The declining apple industry in Grey County has had a similar pattern to the Ontario industry as a

whole. Because of this, it may be useful to examine the Vineland 15-year Strategy that was published in

January, 2010. This extensive study is a component of the Orchard and Vineyard transition program strategy

that is administered by Vineland Research and Innovation Centre. The study, funded by Agriculture and Agri-

Food Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, examines many reasons for

the decline in production and concludes with some recommendations to save the Ontario industry.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034

Productioninmillions(lbs)

Year

Apple Production Ontario and Grey County with Projections(1995-2034)

Ontario Production Grey County Production

Linear (Ontario Production) Linear (Grey County Production)

Future Production ?


13/52

Grey County Apples

Page 12

Ontario producers market share is in decline and the province is steadily reducing its production in

spite of a growing population and an increase in demand for all fresh fruit, including apples, tender fruit, and

fresh grapes, of 12 per cent over the past 20 years. The Vineland study points to an industry that is not

responsive to consumer expectations and inadequate government support for the industry as two of the

biggest factors in this decline. This reduced competitiveness has taken its toll on the provinces apple growing

sector. Figure 3 shows that while the value of imported apples has increased, the value of what Ontario is

exporting out of the province is steadily decreasing. Ontario producers saw their profitability decline by 27.4

per cent between 2003 and 2010, resulting in a five million dollar decline in margins. This decline in

profitability is due in part to a rapid increase in input costs, including fertilizers, fuel, packaging and labour.

FIGURE 3

Source: Vineland 15-year strategy, January 2010

Ontarios competitors, including British Columbia, Washington State, New York State, and Nova

Scotia, have all been more successful at maintaining viable industries that have enhanced efficiency

throughout the supply chain, ensuring a higher quality product will reach consumers. Deloitte has summarized

the inefficiencies throughout Ontarios value chain as resulting from fragmentation, lack of collaboration, and

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

Value'000CDN

Value of Ontario Imports and Exports

Imports

Exports


14/52

Grey County Apples

Page 13

inconsistent application of quality control techniques across the value chain (Deloitte, 2010). Producers who

are forced to remain in the industry because there is no viable exit strategy for them exacerbate the

problem. Lack of commitment to a future in the industry means that these producers do not tend to invest in

improving their orchards, resulting in a lower quality product, which diminishes the consumers perception of

Ontario fruit. This situation is not irreversible. Deloitte has developed the following mission for the industry:

Our mission is to:

Work collaboratively to produce quality products, Meet or exceed the expectations of local, national, and international consumers,

In a manner that produces a financial return competitive with other industries.

The 15-year strategy suggests meeting the stated objective is to thrive in the domestic and global

markets. The strategy suggests this objective can be met if the industry makes the following changes:

Focus on the consumer, Improve quality and value chain performance, Increase innovation within the industry.

In order to meet these objectives, the strategy includes the following suggestions:

1. Focus on the end consumer:a. Get to know the consumerb. Improve value-chain communicationc. Improve qualityd. Improve marketing

2. Improve quality and value chain performance:a. Improve quality,b. Improve service delivery,c. Improve producer efficiency,d. Improve packer/processor efficiency,e. Improve cool chain effectiveness,f. Improve management capability.


15/52

Grey County Apples

Page 14

3. Improve industry innovation:a. Update the industrys product mix,b. Develop a robust processing sector as a strategic choice,c. Improve awareness of innovation-related government programsd. Invest in non-traditional demand development,e. Improve collaboration.

3.2British ColumbiaThe tree fruit industry in British Columbia includes apples, pears, cherries, peaches, nectarines,

apricots, and plums that combined cover 17,665 acres. These acres are concentrated primarily in the

Okanagan Valley but also include the Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island (AGF, n.d.). In BC, apples are

responsible for the bulk of the acreage at 12,600 acres and the average farm gate value at $42,000,000

of $58,757,000 (AGF, n.d.). The industry has experienced economic challenges as traditional varieties

become less popular. In response to this trend many growers have planted new varieties that have brought

significant financial returns but are now under threat due to increasing market competition (BCFGA, 2007a).

Packinghouses are predominantly cooperatives with a small number of private packinghouses that focus on

soft fruit (AGF, n.d.). The cooperatives collectively handle approximately 75% of the apples produced and

range in size from 150 growers to 500 growers (AGF, n.d.).

In 2007 the BC Tree Fruit Industry Strategy was launched at the Growers Association convention

(BCFGA, 2010). The Industry Strategys vision was The tree fruit industry inBC is widely recognized as a

vibrant, economically healthy and sustainable industry that enjoys a strong market position based on products

that are clearly differentiated and of consistently high quality. (BCFGA, 2007a:1) The primary focus was on

industry growth and sustainability through five pillars and goals. The themes of these pillars or goals were

industry structure, quality of products, markets, human resources in the industry, and development of new

varieties (BCFGA, 2010). In order to achieve these goals, 31 actions were identified and assigned to a

specific group or organization along with a timeline or target dates of completion (BFGA, 2007a). The final


16/52

Grey County Apples

Page 15

component of this strategy was the signing of the Tree Fruit Industry Accord by the key stakeholders including

growers associations, packers cooperatives, and related boards to demonstrate an agreement to continue

to build on positive results and a common vision for the BC tree fruit industry. (BCFGA, 2007b:5)

The Strategy specifically names the municipality as a player on the sustainability team, particularly

with regard to the human resource pillar. The action plan lists working with municipalities regarding related

housing bylaws to encourage less restrictive farm worker housing bylaws, and names municipal regulations as

contributing to labour shortage issues.

In addition, the Strategy specifies the regulatory environment as causing a negative impact on the

industry.

Regulations are often more geared toward public concerns with the practices of the industryrather than with its health and profitability. There is some sense that government regulations are

often vague, contradictory, and overly burdensome. Compliance with unnecessary regulations can

be a major contributor to costs that significantly reduce margins. Producers especially are often

dealing with three levels of government each with its own set of regulations. Also, the regulations

are often designed for large operations and compliance by small-scale operations is untenable.

Other competing jurisdictions are usually not encumbered with such regulations (BCFGA, 2007).

A study of British Columbias fruit industry reveals major differences in their approach that might be

helpful for consideration. Figure 4 provides a visual representation of the BC growers cooperative structure.

The growers own two separate organizations, the Okanagan Tree Fruit Cooperative, and the BC Fruit

Growers Association.

According to the BC Tree Fruits website, the tree fruit industry, of which apples comprise

approximately 80 %, represents more than 800 growers. Because of challenges associated with marketing

and transportation, Okanagan growers and shippers have been working cooperatively since 1936, when they

formed BC Tree Fruits Ltd., a central marketing agency. In 1957, there were 36 cooperative societies, 20

independent shippers, and 5 grower-shippers marketing their fruit through BC Tree Fruits Ltd. Substantial

amalgamation throughout the chain has resulted in an industry that today consists of only the Okanagan Tree


17/52

Grey County Apples

Page 16

Fruit Cooperative. It is entirely owned by the Okanagan growers. BC Tree Fruits is a wholly owned subsidiary

of this cooperative.

The ability to market fruit under a single brand, BC Tree Fruits, provides the growers with a marketing

tool to help them compete against lower-priced fruit imported from Washington State. Because of the change

in value of the Canadian currency relative to the U.S., products from the U.S. are now offered in Canada at a

lower price than in the past. The centralized branding of this fruit allows the growers to use a variety of

marketing strategies including specialty packaging, newspaper and radio advertising and a website

(www.bctree.com/press-events/article/00117).

B.C. growers, like those in Ontario, have also faced dramatic increases in costs of production. Their

cooperative also works together to help growers achieve the best prices and advantages of scale on the input

side. Another subsidiary, Growers Supply Company Ltd., is a commercial wholesale division of the OTFC. The

Growers Supply Company sources products that growers and packers need, provides education through

workshops, is a source for weather data, and also helps growers comply with legislation.

The BC Fruit Growers Association (BCFGA) represents the growers interests through activities that

include lobbying the federal and provincial governments, providing education and other services. One arm of

this association is the Okanagan Plant Improvement Corporation (PICO). According to the PICO website (www.

Picocorp.com), it is a variety rights management company that licenses new varieties of tree fruits and berries

domestically and internationally. PICO has exclusive evaluation, distribution, propagation, and

commercialization rights from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). PICOs mission

statement reads as follows:

PICO commercializes fruit varieties, both domestically and internationally, by managing intellectual

property rights and supporting product development and testing with a focus on improving thecompetitiveness of Canadas tree fruit and berry growers (www. Picocorp.com).
http://www.bctree.com/press-events/article/00117http://www.bctree.com/press-events/article/00117http://www.bctree.com/press-events/article/00117http://www.bctree.com/press-events/article/00117


18/52

Grey County Apples

Page 17

FIGURE 4 BC Growers Cooperative Structure

In the Okanagan Valley, regions and municipalities have developed agriculture or food plans to

ensure the long-term sustainability of agriculture and to increase food security in their area. The North

Okanagan Regional Food System Plan and the Township of Spallumcheen Agricultural Area Plan are two

examples of plans that were created through consultation with agricultural producers, the general public, and

municipal staff. Both plans identify specific goals and actions that the municipality can take on to achieve the

goals.

Growers

Okanagan TreeFruit

Cooperative

BC Tree FruitsLtd.

Growers SupplyCompany Ltd.

BC FruitGrowers'

Association

Okanagan PlantImprovementCorporation


19/52

Grey County Apples

Page 18

Spallumcheen Agricultural Area Plan (summary)

Goal Action RegionSupport Productivity Creating a farm labour pool to address farm

help shortages and examine labour issues

including housing standards

North Okanagan RegionalFood System Plan

Create Potential to ExpandGrowers Land and/orOpportunities for NewFarmers

Create database of land available for rent orpurchase

Township of SpallumcheenAgricultural Area Plan

Encourage New Farmers Develop training programs, resources database,credit and other forms of assistance forbeginning farmers and youth interested infarming and food processing related careers

North Okanagan RegionalFood System Plan; Township ofSpallumcheen AgriculturalArea Plan

Protect Agricultural Land Explore and support community and alternativeagriculture opportunities such as land trusts andcooperatives

North Okanagan RegionalFood System Plan; Township ofSpallumcheen Agricultural

Area PlanRemove Distribution Barriers Create a centralized warehouse distributionsystem including storage to extend farmersseasons


Remove Distribution Barriers Identify barriers and gaps in infrastructure thatprevent growers from marketing their crops andvalue-added products locally.


Support Processing Facilities inIndustrial Land Use Planning

Include agricultural processing facilities in landuse planning and policy


Expand Local Markets Encourage all local businesses to purchase,promote, and support locally grown food


IncreaseAdvertising/Awareness

Assist local farmers to promote products online;create better farm gate signage


Create a voice for farmers Create a Farmers Council that includes allcommodities to help implement agriculturalrelated changes and provide feedback tomunicipality on key issues


Improve Efficiency ofRegulation Costs

Streamline licensing and regulations processesincluding long-term leases to eliminate excesscosts


Educate Youth Create partnerships with local schools to educateyouth about importance of local food


Local Branding Create a local brand for products Township of SpallumcheenAgricultural Area Plan

Educate Rural Population Educate rural landowners of the importance ofgood land use practice on their properties toreduce impact on neighbouring agricultural land



20/52

Grey County Apples

Page 19

4 SURVEY OBSERVATIONS4.1 General Results

The survey identified the following results pertaining to the current state of the apple industry in Grey

County.

More than half of respondents (10) identified their orchard as being approximately 11 to 40hectares in size. As well, 6 respondents selected the 4 to 10 hectares choice.

FIGURE 5

Respondents identified a wide range of apple varieties being grown in Grey County. The three mostfrequently identified varieties were McIntosh (19 respondents), Empire (16 respondents), and Northern

Spy (16 respondents).


21/52

Grey County Apples

Page 20

TABLE 3

Which apple varieties do you produce? (Please check all that apply)

Respondents Percent

McIntosh 19 100.0%

Empire 16 84.2%

Northern Spy 16 84.2%

Cortland 11 57.9%

Gala 11 57.9%

Honey Crisp 11 57.9%

Idared 10 52.6%

Spartan 10 52.6%

Red Delicious 7 36.8%

Crispin (or Mutsu) 5 26.3%

Paulared 5 26.3%

Jonagold 4 21.1%

Ambrosia 3 15.8%

Ginger Gold 3 15.8%

Golden Delicious 3 15.8%

Golden Russett 3 15.8%

Jerseymac 3 15.8%

Earligold 2 10.5%

Jonamac 1 5.3%

Macoun 1 5.3%

Quinte 1 5.3%

Shizuka 1 5.3%

St. Lawrence 1 5.3%

Wealthy 1 5.3%

Total respondents 19

Skipped 4

4.1.1 Purpose for GrowingThe survey indicated that most respondents made their livelihood from growing apples. Most

frequently respondents indicated that they operated their farm as a full time business, that they were not

occupied off farm, and that their rationale for growing apples was to make money. This further solidifies that,


22/52

Grey County Apples

Page 21

at least based upon survey responses, apple growing in Grey County is undertaken primarily as a business as

opposed to growing as a hobby or for a supplemental income. The following points indicate additional details

in the surveys findings.

Most respondents (15) identified that their farm operated as a full-time business while 4respondents stated that it was a part-time business.

The majority of respondents stated that they were not employed off their farm (11) while 4respondents stated that they did work full-time and another 4 respondents identified thatthey worked part-time off the farm.

When asked why they grew apples the majority of respondents identified that it was tomake money (10). The next most frequent rationale was due to family business (4

respondents) and then lifestyle at 3 respondents.

FIGURE 6


23/52

Grey County Apples

Page 22

4.1.2 Advertising

The survey indicated that many of the respondents did not participate in advertising. Many do not

advertise likely because they do not market directly to the public (i.e. growing for juice apples). The most

frequently selected mode of advertising was found to be advertisements in the local paper.

When asked of the types of advertising they participate in the top three most commonresponses were: none, I dont advertise (8 respondents), advertisements in the local paper (5respondents); local food maps (4 respondents).

TABLE 4

What types of advertising do you participate in? (Please check all that apply)

Respondents Percent

None, I don't advertise 8 42.1%

Advertisements in the local paper 5 26.3%

Local Food Maps 4 21.1%

Signs or Billboards 3 15.8%

On my own Website 3 15.8%

Local tourism, lifestyle or other Magazines and Newspapers 2 10.5%

Provincial and National Activities 1 5.3%

Sponsorships 1 5.3%

Sign at gate 1 5.3%

Ontario Apple Growers Assoc 1 5.3%

Through social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter) 0 0.0%


Skipped 4

4.1.3 Direct Sales

Based upon survey results it was found that approximately half of the respondents engaged in direct

selling of their apples and that this process was vital to their business.

Of the survey respondents, 11 respondents identified that they did currently engage indirect selling of their apples and/or apple products while the other 9 stated that they didnot.


24/52

Grey County Apples

Page 23

Furthermore, of those that did engage in direct selling it was identified that 8 engaged infarm gate sales; 3 in farm retail stores; and only 1 in a local farmers' market.

When asked to rate the importance of direct sales to their business, respondents identifiedthe following in descending level of agreement:

o The income from direct sales is vital to their businesso Respondents enjoy engaging directly with customerso Direct selling offers a way to sell value-added productso The respondent will be expanding direct selling activities in the next 5 yearso Direct selling is difficult with current government regulations

FIGURE 7


25/52

Grey County Apples

Page 24

4.1.4 Future Plans

Survey respondents were asked a few questions regarding the future plans for their operation. It was

found that the majority of respondents to these questions had participated in the Orchard and Vineyard

Transition Program (OVTP). As well, several respondents indicated that within the next 5 years they expected

to expand their operations. However, it was also found that a significant number of respondents expected to

reduce the size of their operation or retire within the next 5 years.

In terms of succession planning it was found that only half of the respondents had a plan. Further, the

identified plans that did exist may be problematic; for instance, in some cases an expectation of sellingones

orchard for development may not be able to occur due to specialty/prime agricultural land use restrictions. As

well, when compared to other survey and interview findings the expectation that orchards will be sold for

continued apple production may be difficult due to barriers to obtaining loans as well as the limited

profitability of the industry.

The following points provide additional details on the future plans of survey respondents.

Of the respondents it was indicated that 8 had participated in the Orchard and VineyardTransition Program (OVTP) to pull out trees in 2010 while 3 had not.

Those participating in the OVTP program were then asked whether they have, or will bereplanting apple trees with the following responses:

o Yes, dwarf trees (2 respondents)o Yes, new varieties (2 respondents)o No (2 respondents)

Of those indicating they did participate in OVTP program but you are not replanting thefollowing reasons were provided:

o I downsized my orchard lands (1 respondent)o Otherwant to replant but cannot afford to (no profitability right now)

Survey respondents were asked to describe their current succession/retirement plan. It wasindicated that 6 respondents intended to sell the operation as an orchard, 3 intended to sell

the operation for development (i.e. residential), and 9 respondents had no plan.


26/52

Grey County Apples

Page 25

When asked about the future plans for their operation within the next five yearsrespondents had several responses. The two most frequently selected options were

expansion (7 responses) and reduction (5 responses). The remainder of the responses are

presented in Table 5.

TABLE 5

What are the future plans for your operation within the next five years? (Please check all that apply)Respondents Percent

Expansion 7 36.8%

Reduction 5 26.3%

Retirement 4 21.1%

Diversification into other agricultural production 4 21.1%

Stay the same 2 10.5%

Diversification into other fruit species 1 5.3%

Diversification into value added operations such as cider production 1 5.3%

Other 1 5.3%Total respondents 19

Skipped 4

FIGURE 8


27/52

Grey County Apples

Page 26

4.2 IssuesSurvey respondents were asked a variety of questions pertaining to the issues faced by the apple

industry in Grey County. The following sub-sections provide description and context for these findings.

4.2.1 Obstacles and Barriers

Respondents to the survey indicated several barriers to their profitability as well as obstacles for new

producers entering the industry. It was found that the primary obstacles to profitability were largely outside

the control of local government, with the possible exception of marketing, and would need to be addressed at

the provincial or even federal levels of government. As well, the primary obstacle for new entrants to the

industry was found to be profitability thereby indicating interconnectedness within the issues faced by the

industry.

TABLE 6

Some activities are barriers to Apple Industry profitability. Please rate the following as possible barriers to yourprofitability

NotImportant

SomewhatImportant

Neutralneither not

important orimportant

Important N/ARating

AverageResponse

Count

Increasing energy costs 0 1 0 11 0 3.83 12

High minimum wage 1 0 1 10 0 3.67 12

Costs of fertilizer/pesticides 0 2 0 9 1 3.64 12International competition 0 2 0 8 1 3.60 11

Marketing 1 1 0 10 0 3.58 12

Government Regulations 0 3 1 8 0 3.42 12

Climate change 1 3 4 4 0 2.92 12

Natural pestsbirds, mice,rabbits, deer etc.

1 5 1 5 0 2.83 12

Borrowing ability 3 2 2 5 0 2.75 12

Number of processors 3 3 1 5 0 2.67 12

Price of Land 3 2 4 3 0 2.58 12

Shortage of labour 4 1 3 4 0 2.58 12

Availability of new varieties 4 2 0 5 0 2.55 11


Skipped 11

Respondents were asked about the main barriers to the profitability of their operation. Thefive main obstacles (based upon rating average) were identified as:


28/52

Grey County Apples

Page 27

o Increasing energy costso High minimum wageo Costs of fertilizer/pesticideso International competitiono Marketing

Survey respondents identified two obstacles to new producers entering the industry. Thesewere: profitability (7 respondents) and costs associated with establishing an orchard (4respondents).

4.2.2 Government Support

Survey respondents were asked one question on government support for the apple industry. It was found

that respondents felt that there was inadequate support from each level of government.

Survey respondents were asked to state their agreement with 4 questions relating togovernment support for the apple industry. Based upon rating average, the provincial levelwas found to provide the least support, followed by the federal level, and then the

County/Municipal Government. As well, there was agreement on the existence of provincialinequalities in government support.

FIGURE 9


29/52

Grey County Apples

Page 28

4.2.3 Land Use

Of those responding to the survey it was found that most agreed that small acreages have no effect

on the apple industry or were even beneficial. Respondents also indicated that the main competition for apple

growing acreage was other agriculture and residential uses. Nevertheless, it was found that most respondents

did not experience conflict with neighbours over farm practices.

When asked about the size of orchard parcels it was indicated that most respondents believedthat smaller acreages have no effect on the apple industry (7 respondents) while 4 respondents

selected that smaller acreages are beneficial to the industry. No respondents indicated that

smaller acreages harm growers ability to produce apples.

In reference to whether respondents experience conflict with neighbours over your farm practicesmost (8 respondents) indicated they did not. Of the 3 that indicated that they did experience

conflict the following explanations were provided:

o nuisance by-law complaints, trespassing, crop thefto neighbours don't understand organic productiono lack of understanding by urban people about farming practices

When asked about the main land uses that compete for apple growing acreage the followingresponses were selected:

o Other agriculture (4 respondents)o Residential development (3 respondents)o Recreational property (3 respondents)

4.2.4 Additional CommentsAdditional comments from the survey relating to issues include:

Anyone waiting to be paid to plant orchard should not be growing apples and will onlyharm the industry.

Our input costs are some of the highest in North America and many other countries in theworld.

Someone must do more to reduce our costs and regulations, or put tariffs on those who havelower costs and regulations.

expenses for producing the fruit have risen substantially but price paid to grower per lbhas not

Succession to son/daughter may not occur due to profitability factor. For new growers tobuy orchard land, equipment, etc., financing would need to be available and banks need tosee a profit margin.


30/52

Grey County Apples

Page 29

4.3 OptionsDuring the survey respondents were asked several questions relating to options available for

addressing the issues faced by the apple industry in Grey County.

4.3.1 Marketing and Profitability

When reviewing the results on two questions relating to options for improving the apple marketing

system and options for improving profitability some overlap became apparent. For instance, improved

marketing campaigns and a branded Ontario product was found to be a common response in both questions.

The full list of responses follows and provides additional insight into the options favoured by respondents.

Survey respondents identified two key methods to improve the apple marketing system.These were: single-desk selling (i.e. grocers have one point contact to fill orders) and abranded Ontario product which were each identified as the most effective method by 5

respondents respectively.

FIGURE 10


31/52

Grey County Apples

Page 30

o In addition to the options provided in the survey one respondent specified betterprices in the other category and another included all direct sales.

Survey respondents were asked to identify what they believed would be most beneficial forthe profitability of their operation. The top 5 most frequently identified options were:

oStrengthened marketing campaigns (i.e. buy local)10 respondentso Reduced government regulations8 respondents

o Government safety nets/income stabilization programs7 respondentso Increased innovation in the industry (i.e. increased density, varieties, etc.)6

respondentso Government financial support for replanting trees6 respondents

TABLE 7

Which of the following do you believe would be most beneficial for the profitability of your operation?

(Please check all the apply)

Respondents Percent

Strengthened marketing campaigns (i.e. buy local) 10 83.3%

Reduced government regulations 8 66.7%

Government safety nets/income stabilization programs 7 58.3%

Increased innovation in the industry (i.e. increased density, varieties etc.) 6 50.0%

Government financial support for replanting trees 6 50.0%

Availability of new Varieties 5 41.7%

More effective marketing coordination 5 41.7%

Supply management 4 33.3%

Price floors 4 33.3%

More opportunity for value-added production (i.e. cider) 3 25.0%

Ability to expand 3 25.0%

Educational opportunities 2 16.7%

Other (More Ontario apples on store shelves) 1 8.3%

Farmer cooperatives 0 0.0%


Skipped 11

4.3.2 Government Support

The most common responses relating to government support for the apple industry indicated that


32/52

Grey County Apples

Page 31

survey respondents felt that government should help provide support for replanting orchards and that

specialty crop land should not be protected.

The majority of respondents indicated that they believed there should be government support toreplant orchards with 8 indicating agreement and 4 indicating there should not be support.

The majority of respondents indicated that they did not believe that specialty crop areas forapple-growing should be protected with 7 indicating no protection and 4 indicating yes forprotection.

o Of the 4 yes respondents it was indicated that the most effective means to protect specialtycrop areas for apple-growing would be provincial regulations (2 respondents) followed by

municipal zoning (1 respondent) and increased profitability (1 respondent).

4.3.3 Additional Comments

Additional comments from the survey relating to options for the industry include:

Orchards must be rejuvenated to plant higher density[1000 trees per acre approx] to growless juice and higher quality fruit and efficiency & newer varieties.

Should be able to have 10-15 acre blocks of orchards similarly to the Okanagan Valley,BC.

A reduction in the use of fungicides, pesticides and herbicides to improve soil quality.Education of organic practices would be a vital component of this.

Better labelling laws, a juice blend should have country of origin(s) clearly and boldlylabelled.

Ontario apple growers need to be able to compete with other apple producing areas andneed the shelf space at retail level to do so. We need to be growing the apple varietiesthat consumers/retailer wish with high quality standards that we see from other apple areas.This means replacing some older varieties with new and keeping quality standards high (andenforced).

A marketing strategy for Ontario apples to maximize returns to growers and eliminateprice competition between suppliers.

Profit margins have to be available for future generations to be viable in the industry.Profits are built in to the rest of the food chain and need to be here also.


33/52

Grey County Apples

Page 32

4.4DiscussionUpon analyzing the key informant interviews and the survey results, it is clear that a number of

sustainability issues are beyond the scope of local government to address. The following provides a

summary of the issues identified and the level of government that currently, or could potentially, address

these issues.

What the community told us:

Municipal Jurisdiction Provincial Jurisdiction Federal Jurisdiction No Legislation

Lot size Provincial competition

issues

International

competition issues

Marketing, supply

chain issues.Marketing campaign

buy local (possibly in

conjunction with tourism

initiatives)

Input costs - labour Input costsregulation

of pesticides

Ability to access

capital to replant

Local by-laws affecting

land use and building

codes (especially

affecting workers

housing)

Provincially branded

product (formerly

Orchard crisp)

Government safety

nets/income

stabilization programs

Increasing energy

costs

Commitment to

research and

development of new

varieties, improved

production techniques

Commitment to

research and

development of new

varieties, improved

production techniques

Barriers to entry and

exit


exit


exit

Marketing campaign

buy local (possibly inconjunction with tourism

initiatives)

Federal support for

replant program

Government safety

nets/income

stabilization programs

Improved labelling

laws (country of origin)


34/52

Grey County Apples

Page 33

5 LOOKING FORWARD5.1 Principles Reflections from ourselves, the community and the

literature

The development of principles in this report is intended to highlight areas of agreement that can be

used as starting points for finding common ground in an increasingly complex world. Using principles can help

guide municipalities and the county now and in the future as they consider land use planning with respect to

the local residents, as well as the broader community. These principles were developed as a result of

reflecting on what the community told us, as well as from examining the literature and information from other

sectors.

Principle 1: Maintaining a secure, sustainable source of food is vital for the health of Grey County. Facing

an unknown future of dealing with climate change and less available sources of energy make it moreimportant to protect our natural food systems. This is supported by federal, provincial, and localpolicies.

Principle 2: Promoting supply-chain systems that enhance agricultural sustainability is important. Throughinterviews and a review of the industry strategic plan for Ontario, it was revealed that one of thebiggest challenges for sustainability of the Ontario industry is inefficiencies throughout the supply-chain. This is one area where the provincial government could play a role in improving the overallsustainability by facilitating cooperation throughout the chain.

Principle 3: Continued protection of the local agricultural resource and the farm community is desirable.Protecting farm land and the farmers who use it is vital to maintaining food security and sovereignty

for all Canadians, now and in the future.

Principle 4: Communication between growers, local government, and consumers is good .Interviews andthe industrys strategic plan revealed that apple growers need to have a better understanding oftheir consumers. Fostering effective communication between these two interconnected groups canstrengthen the understanding of where food comes from, all the care that is taken to keep it safe, andpass vital information back to growers about what consumers value.

Principle 5: Standards are in place to protect Canadians.There is value in the safety nets provided by aregulated system that provides Canadians with minimum wage, adequate testing and evaluation ofchemicals, and land use planning.

Principle 6: Farmers need to be adequately compensated for their product. The value provided byCanadian farmers should be recognized by compensating growers fairly and understanding there is adifference in the value of imported goods.

Principle 7: Adaptability is vital for sustainability. Change is constant. Building food systems that areadaptable helps provide resiliency for both the agricultural industry and the communities that rely onit. Climate change, rising energy costs, increasing demands for land, and other unforeseen changesmust be anticipated by allowing policies to adjust accordingly.


35/52

Grey County Apples

Page 34

Principle 8: Educational Opportunities help keep people on the same page.Providing opportunities to learnbetter ways of producing food enhances resiliency and helps food systems adapt to change.

Principle 9: Sound land use planning helps society share a limited resource. Considering that productiveland is one of the most important resources we have, good stewardship promoted by sound land useplanning can protect this valuable resource now and for the future.

Principle 10: Cooperation between levels of government makes better decisions.While the province hasan overall vision with regard to land use, local counties and municipalities still have some discretionover the best ways to determine land use.

Principle 11: Effective communication between groups provides a better understanding and opportunitiesfor collaboration. Groups who may not have collaborated in the past are increasingly workingtogether as society recognizes our interconnectedness. Healthy food systems include producers,consumers, environment, communities, and policies.

Principle 12: Supporting different production models builds diversity.Different production models filldifferent niches in the food system. Supporting a variety of models helps ensure food security for thefuture.

5.2 Future DirectionThe following section provides examples of options that Grey County, the Municipality of Meaford

and the Town of the Blue Mountains may wish to consider to support the Apple Industry. These options were

based on the information we received through our Key Informant Interviews, the survey and secondary

research.

Options were divided these into three categories:

1. Low Hanging Fruit these are ideas which may be easiest to reach with the largest benefit

2. Land Use Planning Policy Options both County and Lower-Tier Municipal Official Plans and Zoning By-laws

3. Economic Development Strategies, plans, policiesand funding on the regional and local levels

None of the options explored here will alone be effective in helping sustain or revitalize an industry

which has issues at the global, national, and provincial level, however each offers ways that the county might

further support the industry at the level they are able. We recognized the complexity of the issues of

agriculture is not likely to be reversed in a meaningful way at the local level. In addition, options for


36/52

Grey County Apples

Page 35

developing other crops or agricultural activities is beyond the scope of this document since these are usually

pursued by those directly involved in agricultureif a new crop is a profitable option for the Grey County

area, it will likely be tried and tested by the farmer.

Farmers have been very successful at understanding what kinds of agriculture will be possible in a

specific area. It is not likely that options specifically explored in Niagara Region, for example, will be

necessarily be successful here. We feel that exploring options for new productsboth primary and value-

added is the responsibility of producers but the County has the ability to support these activities and

therefore the options we explored were related to the specific expertise of the County.

5.2.1 Low Hanging Fruit

1. Buy Local Campaigns can extend into County Activities Grey County and Regional Institutions could develop buy local policies

Nursing Homes Schools Hospitals

Rationale: At one time, buying local was a necessity because storage and travel were not an option

for fresh fruit. While this will not impact the industry on a large scale, it lays the groundwork to reverse the

erosion of the apple industry and shows that the county is willing to support the industry where possible. It

may open up opportunities for other institutions to follow suit.

2. Municipali ties could provide greater support for grower markets (i .e . farmers markets) Could be through subsidies such as providing further financial or forgiveness assistance, butalso through network support, marketing, and tourism coordination

Rationale: Farmers markets offer growers from all types of agriculture a way to market and sell their

products directly to their customers, building relationships and getting the best return for their work. However,

farmers markets are sometimes expensive and time consuming for producers. Assisting grower markets to

flourish is beneficial for both the industry and tourism of the community and region.


37/52

Grey County Apples

Page 36

3. Co-ordinate Strategic and Comprehensive Plans Economic Development and Strategic Plans should be compatible with county and lower-tiermunicipal official plans.

Economic Development activities and networks should be compatible with other strategic plans(ex. the Fifteen Year Strategic Plan for the Apple, Tender Fruit and Fresh Grape Industry, 2010)

Rationale: Often economic development occurs in isolation to sound planning. Economic development

and planning are integrally linked but the policies and plans are not always compatible at the regional level.

Linking priorities through the economic and official plans may help the plans go further towards their goals.

Networking within communities and the region may be an essential part of sound economic development

practice in rural areas since there is often strength in numbers. A lot of work has been done at the industry

level that local government may not be aware of and therefore are not able to support these strategies with

local plans and policies.

5.2.2 Land Use Planning Policy Options

Grey County, Meaford and Blue Mountains Official Plans make protecting and maintaining agriculture

a priority in these communities. Land use planning practices have the potential to have positive or negative

effects on agriculture. Current policies in Ontario favour agriculture as directed through the Provincial Policy

Statement. It may be possible to develop specific policies to protect and promote the apple industry in Grey

County.

Land use policy areas which may be explored further and serve to protect, promote or sustain

agriculture fall into three different categories:

1. Use of Buffer Zones2. Secondary Use Policies3. Specialty Crop designation and defini tions

The following sections outline these categories which may be explored further by policy makers.


38/52

Grey County Apples

Page 37

LIMITATIONS OF LAND USE PLANNING

We recognize that land use planning can only enable or restrict activities which occur in a geographic

area, but they cannot ensure that the activities it allows will occur. Specialty crop designations for example

may provide certain protection for the agricultural lands, but the smaller parcel size may also make it easier

to purchase for non-agricultural uses as well, such as for an estate or retirement property. The policy cannot

ensure the land produces a specialty crop. Similarly, secondary use policies may permit an activity, such as

apple cider processing, however it will not make that activity happen.

BUFFER ZONES

The designated specialty Crop areas in Grey County are in very close proximity to the urban

communities of Meaford, Thornbury, and Clarksburg as well as the Niagara Escarpment Plan. This has the

potential to create conflict between land uses. It has been long understood that agricultural activities and

residential development may have incompatibilities for the following reasons:

From Agriculture:

Overspray from Fertilizers and pesticides

Regular harvesting and pruning activities which use mechanical equipment Noise or odours deemed nuisance Burning of waste materials

From Residential:

Trespassing by people and pets Theft Traffic

In order to protect agricultural activities one option may be a consideration to develop policies which

include buffer zones between agriculture and development activities. The purpose of the buffer is to minimize

the impact of activities which may be regarded as nuisance, which are part of normal farm practices as well

as providing a real or perceived barrier which serves to divide and mark property lines. Planning along the

rural-urban transition is also known as Edge Planning.


39/52

Grey County Apples

Page 38

Buffers are often used to separate land uses which have compatibility issues, such as:

industrial and residential transitions in density, such as medium density residential and low density residential Commercial, residential or agricultural and water courses

In land use planning, agriculture has often been regarded as somewhat compatible with residential

and in some instances, agricultural areas are treated as open space. However, providing buffer areas to

minimize impact between agriculture and residential, recreational, commercial and other land uses.

Source: British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, 2009

Ideally, the onus for installation of buffers could be given to the developer. It is possible to make

buffers a requirement of site plans or development permits of applications located next to agriculture which is

considered prime - specialty crop and class 1-3 soils. Examples of required buffers between agriculture and

other development are found in Australia, California and British Columbia. The British Columbia Ministry of

Agriculture and Lands has produced a set of guidelines for edge planning (see Appendix III for a list of

resources). The Edge Planning document is a toolkit for how, when, and where to develop buffers for

maximum benefit. The Town of the Blue Mountains Economic Development Document Red Hot and Blue includes

buffers as an action under their goal to Maintain and enhance prosperous and sustainable agriculture in

6.2.


40/52

Grey County Apples

Page 39

Key Option: Explore the possibility for Buffer areas for certain agricultural areas as part of

Official Plans

SECONDARY USE POLICIES

Secondary Uses to agriculture are intended to be compatible activities, adjunct to the main use, which

is agriculture. However, many farms rely on home industries to support them financially

The Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 defines secondary uses as:

...uses secondary to the principal use of the property, including but not limited to, homeoccupations, home industries, and uses that produce value-added agricultural products from thefarm operation on the property.

Secondary Uses seen in this region can fall into three overlapping main categories:

1. Farm related business farm gate sales, value added production, retail store

2. Home Occupation or Industry light industrial, such as machine shop

3. Agri-tourism petting Zoos, bed and breakfasts, retail store

The County of Grey and the two lower-tier municipalities could explore the current definitions of

secondary uses by considering other official plans in agricultural communities. Diversification of agriculture,

secondary support of agriculture and increased agri-tourism may be desirable; however, many activities

which have been proposed in other communities may or may not be suitable for Grey County.

For example, the Niagara Region has very significant specialty crop areas, development pressures

and several jurisdictional plans (Niagara Escarpment Plan, Green Belt Plan etc.). In response, the upper and

lower-tier official plans have specific and expanded definitions for secondary uses and winery-specific

accessory activities.


41/52

Grey County Apples

Page 40

Key Options:Compare current policies with other agri-tourism and secondary use

policies in other jurisdictions and look for areas to expand current policies

SPECIALTY CROP DESIGNATION AND DEFINITIONS

Specialty Crop areas are afforded the highest protection in the Provincial Policy Statement. Special

Crop areas in Grey were chosen because they include micro climates suitable for specific crops but they may

encompass a variety of soil types. The micro climates identified in the region have been shown to be ideal for

growing apples.

In Grey County, Specialty Crop parcels generally have a minimum size of 10 hectares. This size was

considered relevant to the apple industrys specific crop densities and specific farm activities for this industry.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER POSSIBLE ACTIONS

Do the specialty crop areas reflect the types of activitiesactually occurring in the area?

Survey activities in specialty crop areas Categorise other uses Mitigate impact of incompatible uses

Does the specialty crop parcel size minimum of 10hareflect what is suitable for growing apples by newstandard densities?

Planners could work with growers, and theprovince to understand current innovation in the

industry with densities

Compare with other apple growing regionsIs there more protection needed to ensure that specialtycrop areas are not removed from production due to realestate pressures (i.e. estate lots)

Survey of actual use Analyse losses of specialty crop to residential

How many undeveloped lots occur in specialty crop andprime agriculture areas? What are the effects ofdevelopment on these lots?

Calculate undeveloped lots Consider potential conflicts of development Mitigate impact

5.2.3

Economic Development

Economic development strategies and activities occur at the national, provincial, regional, and local

levels. Many of these levels work in isolation from one another and there is jurisdictional overlap. Local and


42/52

Grey County Apples

Page 41

regional economic development is where most activity takes place with local economic development

practitioners in:

Tourism organizations such as Regional 7, Georgian Triangle Tourist Association chambers of commerce lower tier municipal staff county staff regional economic development associations provincial ministry offices in the local community business enterprise centres

Many of these actors produce strategies with one or more partners; however there is opportunity to

coordinate even further. In looking at some of the economic development strategy documents, we noticed

while agriculture is mentioned, it is not always clear what activities are planned or occurring in the region. In

addition, there is very little focus on the apple industry in economic development strategies.

Something else to explore is how to get key actors to the table to discuss how to best support or re-

generate the industry and to develop a set of key questions. For example:

What products and processing are most useful in this area? What are the barriers to value-added, direct sales or complementary activities? What are the tools, funds, resources available to help farmers expand and develop their

businesses

How can tourism and agriculture become more closely compatible and interrelated? Are the ways that agriculture might diversify like has been done on other regions?

Key Options:

- Hold a local consortium, set of workshops or other round table discussion to geteconomic developers, farmers, local officials and tourism partners together to discuss

the issues and opportunities in this area.- Develop a funding database specifically for agri-business (ex. OMAFRA Rural

Economic Development, Community Futures, etc.)

- Consider the development of an overall Special Agricultural Community ImprovementPlan to find a common direction with options for funding improvement projects


43/52

Grey County Apples

Page 42

Appendix I. TERMS OF REFERENCE

Terms of Reference

Grey County Apple Industry Study

T H E I S S U E The apple growing industry in Grey County is in economic decline. This situation can be attributed to severalparallel obstacles, such as: aging operators, high costs of replanting, competition with international sources,

and changing market demands.

As a result, Grey County requires options for addressing this issue. The options may be further divided intotwo streams. First, the County requires options for revitalizing and increasing the long term viability of thiseconomically important sector. Second, the County requires options for supporting those growers that elect totransition out of the apple industry as well as potential uses for the specialized agriculture land designation.

G O A L S A N D O B J E C T I V E SThese Terms of Reference outline the collaborative relationship between a study group of graduate studentsfrom the class RPD*6280 (Advanced Planning Practice) at the University of Guelph and the County of Grey. Itis understood that the graduate class will work collectively with the County of Grey, the Municipality ofMeaford and the Town of the Blue Mountains during the months of February, March and April 2011, in order

to achieve the following goals:

1. Provide a set of recommendations to inform policy making at the municipal, county and provinciallevels which may be used to promote vitality of the Apple Industry

2. Meet the educational objectives of the graduate classD E L I V E R A B L E S In order to meet the above goals, the following deliverables are required:

1. A finished report which includes the following:o A snapshot of the current status of the apple industry including existing, and emerging, issues

faced by the industryo Existing strengths/opportunities already present in the region.o

A collection of policy options/recommendations sub-divided by County, Municipal, andProvincial with consideration of varying responsibilities and authorities.

2. A presentation of findings to the community as appropriate, such as to council or other public forum.(to be determined)

M E T H O D O L O G Y The study group will engage in a variety of methods to achieve the goals of the project:


44/52

Grey County Apples

Page 43

Key informant interviews with municipal staff, local growers and processors, community organizations,and provincial representatives

Questionnaire distributed to apple growers in Grey County Secondary Research including:

o Case studies and best practices of jurisdictions facing similar obstacles in agricultureo Baseline and historical background data on the apple industry in Ontario and Globally

G U I D I N G P R I N C I P L E S Based on the described methodology, this project is guided by the following principles:

This project will be undertaken in an open and transparent process, reflecting a shared vision ofcommunity economic and social vitality

This project will endeavour to maintain the integrity of the communities and their knowledge andexperiences

R O L E S A N D R E S P O N S I B I L I T I E S University of Guelph Students:

To engage in community level and secondary research To produce a final report

To present the report findings to the communities

County of Grey:

Support the research by assisting with technical resources, such as: GIS data, aerial photography,official and strategic plans or other documents and resources

Provide communication support with the lower tier municipalities of Meaford and Town of the BlueMountains, as well as apple growers, processors and other relevant contacts

Provide general project guidance from time to timeT I M E L I N E Distribution of Questionnaire: February 2011

Presentation to the Communities (Council): April 2011Submission of Final Report: April 2011


45/52

Grey County Apples

Page 44

APPENDIX II. APPLE INDUSTRY SURVEY QUESTIONSOntario Apple Industry SurveyThe apple industry in the Province of Ontario is experiencing decline. The purpose of this survey is to betterunderstand the situation faced by those involved in the apple industry. As well, it is expected that obstacles facedby the industry will be identified and potential solutions can be found to support this important industry into thefuture. The study behind this survey is being undertaken by graduate students in Rural Planning and Developmentat the University of Guelph, in co-operation with the County of Grey, Municipality of Meaford and Town of theBlue Mountains.

We appreciate your participation in this survey. Individual responses will be kept confidential.For more information about this survey please contact Dr. Wayne Caldwell at:[email protected]

GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. How would you describe the primary function of your operation? Grower Processor Distributor Other (please specify)

GROWER INFORMATION

1. What is the approximate size of your orchard? n Less than 4 Hectares ( < 10 Acres) n 41 to 80 Hectares (100-199 Acres) n 4 to 10 (11 to 25 Acres) n More than 80 Hectares (200 + Acres) n 11 to 40 Hectares (26 to 99 Acres) Other _____________________

ario Apple Industry Survey2. Which apple varieties do you produce?(Please check all that apply)Marketing

McIntosh Northern Spy g Red Delicious g Jerseymac g Empire g Quinte

g Idared

g Paulared g Crispin (or Mutsu) g Golden Russett g Golden Delicious g Jonagold g Spartan g Honey Crisp g Cortland g Gala

g Other (please specify)__________________

3. Which of the following best expresses your farm's current status? g My farm operates as full-time business g My farm operates as a part-time business Other ______________________

4. Which of the following options best describes your employment situation? g I work part-time off farm g I work full-time off farm

g I do not work off the farm Other ______________________

5. Why do you grow apples? n Lifestyle n Family business n To make money n Personal values n Other (please specify) ________________________
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


46/52

Grey County Apples

Page 45

MARKETINGApple Industry Survey

6. What types of advertising do you participate in? (Please check all that apply) g None, I don't advertise g Advertisements on other Websites g Advertisements in the local paper g Local tourism, lifestyle or other Magazines and Newspapers g Signs or Billboards g Local Food Maps

g On my own Website g Other (please specify) _______________________ g Through social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter)

7. What would be the most effective way to improve the apple marketing system? n Single-desk selling (ie grocers have one point contact to fill orders) n Fewer packers n More packers n More cooperation between supply-side partners n Branded Ontario product n Other (please specify) ______________________

DIRECT SELLING

8. Do you currently engage in direct selling of your Apples and/or Apple products? Selling

g No g Yes Other _________________________

Ontario Apple Industry Survey9. What types of direct sales for your apples and/or apple products do you engage in?(Please check all thatapply) g Farm Gate Sales g Farm Retail Store g Local Farmers' Market g Farmers' Market where I travel some distance (i.e. next town, city or GTA) g Community Festivals or Events g Other (please specify) ___________________

10. How important are direct sales to your business?Please rate the following statements:

Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral - neitheragree or disagree

Somewhat agree Agree

The income from direct sales is vital to our

business

We enjoy engaging directly with

customers

Direct Selling offers me a way to sell my

value-added products

We will be expanding our direct selling

activities in the next five years

Direct selling is difficult with current

government regulations


47/52

Grey County Apples

Page 46

POSSIBLE BARRIERS

11. Some activities are barriers to Apple Industry profitability. Please rate the following as possible barriers toyour profitability:

Not ImportantSomewhatImportant

Neutralneithernot important or

importantImportant N/A

High minimum wage

Costs of fertilizer/pesticides

International competition n

Government Regulations

Price of Land

Availability of new varieties Marketing

Number of processors

Shortage of labour

Borrowing ability

Natural pestsbirds, mice,rabbits, deer etc Increasing energy costs

Climate change

Other (please specify)

12. Which of the following do you believe would be most beneficial for the profitability of your operation?

(Please check all the apply)

g Strengthened marketing campaigns (i.e. buy local) g Supply management

g More opportunity for value-added production (i.e. cider) g Farmer cooperatives

g Ability to expand g Educational opportunitiesg Increased innovation in the industry (i.e. increased density,varieties etc.)

g Government safety nets/income stabilization programs

g Government financial support for replanting trees g More effective marketing coordination

g Reduced government regulations g Price floorsg Availability of new Varieties g Other (please specify) ___________________


48/52

Grey County Apples

Page 47

13. What is the largest barrier to new producers entering the industry? n Price of land n Profitability n Costs associated with establishing an orchard n Availability of land n Lifestyle expectations n Other (please specify) ____________________

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT AND REGULATIONSOntario Apple Industry Survey14. Please rate the following statements about the support provided by the various levelsof government forthe apple industry.

Disagree Somewhatdisagree

Neutral - neitheragree or disagree

Somewhatagree

Agree

The County/Regional and

Municipal Government

adequately supports the

apple industry

The provincial

government adequately

supports the appleindustry

There are provincial

inequalities in

government support

that affect my

competitiveness

The federal government

adequately supports

the apple industry

15. Do you think there should be government support to replant orchards? n Yes n No

LAND USE PLANNING

16. Do you think that specialty crop areas for apple-growing should be protected? n Yes n No

17. If you indicated yes above, what is the most effective way to protect specialty crop areas for apple-growing? n Land trusts n Municipal zoning n Provincial regulations n Other (please specify) ______________________

18. Please choose one of the following options about the size of orchard parcels. n Smaller acreages are beneficial to industry n Smaller acreages harm growers ability to produce apples n Smaller acreages have no effect on the apple industry


49/52

Grey County Apples

Page 48

Ontario Apple Industry Survey19. Do you experience conflict with neighbours over your farm practices? n Yes n No

20. If you indicated yes above, please explain:

21. What are the main land uses that compete for apple growing acreage? n Residential development n Recreational property n Other agriculture n Industrial development n Other (please specify) ____________________

22. Did you participate in the Orchard and Vineyard Transition Program (OVTP) to pull out trees in 2010? n Yes No

23. If you answered yes to the above question, did you or will you be replanting apple trees? n Yes, dwarf trees n Yes, new varieties

n No n Other (please specify) ______________________Ontario Apple Industry Survey

24. If you indicated that you did participate in tree removal but you are not replanting, please provided yo

Grey County Apple Study

Documents

Transcript of Grey County Apple Study